Skip to main content

About your Search

20121204
20121204
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
it often doesn't work out that way. in fact from kennedy to reagan to clinton to w. bush lower tax rates frequently increased tax revenues, particularly at the upper end of the income stream. so here now to discuss this we have cnbc contributor keith boykin a former clinton white house aide and forbes media chairman steve forbes author of freedom manifesto, why free markets are moral and big government is not. love that. hey steve and keith. keith boykin i'll give you a little supply side. you'll hate this. this couples from the irs. the irs is going to use the bush cut, the dreaded bush tax cuts. the richest 1% paid $84 billion inflation adjusted dollars more between 2000 and 2007. that's a rise of 23%. in other words, their tax rates went down. and their tax revenues went up. now, isn't mr. obama making a mistake? >> well, the rich are paying more in taxes because the rich are disproportionately receiving most of the income in this country. the reality, larry, is that in my lifetime we've actually only raised income tax rates three times. once in 1969 to pay for the vietnam war. once i
republicans? joining us for a fair & balanced debate, simon rosenberg, a former clinton campaign adviser and president and founder of ndn, just for clarity, a democrat. and the former chairman of the republican party of virginia. kate, does the republican party mead to change its position on immigration? >> well, does it darn dash no it needs to actually star, it needs to talk bim congratulations. strstrategic decisions were made to stay away from the issues that affected these democrat i cans that the republicans did terrible with. the democrats define you on these positions, then as anti-immigration or as the president defined the republicans as the enemy of latino, he actually used that word. rips have to start being savvy and realize that their message is won't that truly does appeal to immigrants, the one of hope and opportunity. why do immigrants come to the united states? for freedom and prosperity. republicans have to start conveying they are the party of freedom and prosperity and start talking about legal immigration. look at these people around the world who have spent their l
clinton and state counselors have been engaging for some time, and that is can we get a better answer than we have had in the past two how a new rise in power comes to the international system. and can we do so without running significant risks or indeed fall into conflict. >> thanks. please. >> i agree with everything the undersecretary has said your, and, in fact, admiral sam locklear underscore those pushes a couple days ago in australia. talking about engagement and that strategic trust. but it's interesting that the chinese tend to look at the american, ma asia pacific give it a sort of a continuing strategy. which speaks to the inability to really communicate with strategic effect. and i think you touched, steve, on a very important piece which was a seniority complex and if i can put it that way. china has felt that they were abused by major powers to the 19th century and well into the 20 century, and that has an interesting counterbalance, which is a seemed a bit of a superiority complex about the solutions that they are building on how china images as a global power. the disconten
president clinton was in office, he left this country in the black. the people have weighed in. they've indicated that we want to move forward, we want to put people to work but we want to do it in a fair method of doing it. and that is not cutting programs that impacts the working poor in this country. mr. garamendi: well, you're absolutely correct about that. the proposal to cut medicare benefits is a nonstarter. there are things that can be done in medicare to reduce the costs and much has already been done. i'd like to ask my colleague from the great state of michigan to join us, mr. curson is a new member, came in during a special election. welcome. delighted to have you join us. mr. curson: thank you. i agree wholeheartedly with what's been said so far and the testimony, what i really want to say -- into the mic. what i really want to say is medicare is run more efficiently than nearly any insurance company in the world. they devote less than 2% of its funding to administrative expenses, and you compare that to a private insurance company that costs up to 40% of premiums for in
, but i could go back to knot the use of the filibuster but other methods of obstruction with bill clinton who reached out all the time. so i think that's the factor but a minor one. i think harry reid's use of filling the amendment tree, partly this is chicken and egg, but has been done too much and that didn't result in at least some protests and willingness of some senators on his side who might otherwise have joined in some of these filibusters to do so. it had much more to do with a concerted party strategy can which i think is the first time we have seen it. >> i think there's two separate issues. one, obstruction on nominations, and to come obstruction on -- [inaudible] it is true you see these judges and it will go 99 points. but i think it's important to remember what we are talking about. the alternative to that is to move it by unanimous consent. it's not like the house where there is about. and if a member of checks to unanimous consent because they do not want to vote, don't want to be forced to vote for a judge, they say i will have a roll call. now, the majority leader at th
. going back to the clinton tax rates, remember, the average american family has taken a hit. median income four years ago was $54,000 a year. it is about $50,000 a year now. this portion of the population has been squeezed. adding taxes on 90% will not be helpful. how much do you want folks to bear? freezing those tax rates for the overwhelming majority of americans is a smart thing to do. host: you said fight later on. guest: the fight would start the next day. we could do what i'm talking about, and negotiations could continue. doing what i'm talking about does not violate what either side is fighting over. they both say this is something we want to do. why not make sure we do not have some last-minute failure at the end of december. guest: what gives you confidence that democrats would agree later on? guest: this is where i disagree with some of my colleagues. they seem to think the american people are leveraged, and this is the democrats leverage. our leverage is in the spending and entitlement issues. the president and his negotiators are smart and able people. they know the re
into effect? why don't we say okay you guys don't want to make a deal fine. we'll go back to the clinton era, which will happen at the beginning of the year. >> stephanie: yeah. >> caller: and i mean also other people in the lower-income brackets will have to pay more, but i think we're willing to do that. >> stephanie: i don't think it's a preferable thing to go off of the cliff, but the more and more you see republicans have not changed one bit from their obstructionist ways i think, yeah, maybe. >> caller: it doesn't mean that starting january, the world will come to an end. >> caller: yeah, it's gradual. >> caller: and if you ask the people -- fortunately i live in texas, so the previous president i didn't -- i agree with a lot of times, but i will just say that he never asked us to sacrifice anything. he told us to go shopping. >> stephanie: yeah. >> caller: that is -- it's crazy. >> stephanie: exactly, unless you cut a [ inaudible ] for that last pair of [ mumbling ] shoes. >> stephanie: i should have picked an easier to pronounce shoe. >> keds. [ laughter ] >> steph
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7